A&P Two "go to lenses"

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by BBB, Mar 10, 2010.

  1. BBB

    BBB OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    40,731
    Likes Received:
    11
    I'm starting to realize really quickly how shitty the stock 18-55 lens on my Canon t1i is. I had the luxury of using my friends 10-22 wide angle lense as well as an L glass something-80mm (I think 20) and i'm spoiled.

    I have the 50mm 1.8 already. I want a wide angle lense (probably 10-22) and a good walk around lense (a total of 3 with my 50mm). What should I have? I'd say my budget between the two lenses would be $1200.

    Thanks for your help
     
  2. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    10-22 and tammy 17-50
    or
    10-22 and tammy 28-75
    or
    tammy 17-50 and longer telephoto. not sure how much a 70-200 f/4 is
     
  3. essejgnad

    essejgnad poopty pangts

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Messages:
    499
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tampa, Florida
    Used 10-22 ~$600
    Used 28-75 ~$350
    Used 100 f/2 ~$325

    Wide, walkaround, portrait/telephoto
     
  4. BBB

    BBB OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    40,731
    Likes Received:
    11
  5. BBB

    BBB OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    40,731
    Likes Received:
    11
  6. BBB

    BBB OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    40,731
    Likes Received:
    11
    Zoom would be a great bonus even though everyone tells me the best zoom are your legs, but hell, sometimes you're not allowed to get too close.
     
  7. essejgnad

    essejgnad poopty pangts

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Messages:
    499
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tampa, Florida
    28-135 is a decent lens, but I like fast glass and for the price, the tamron 28-75 2.8 is a much better lens. Comparable to the 24-70L in some instances

    That 10-22 is a good deal, they are selling for roughly $6-625 on FM

    That 100mm is a 2.8 and a macro lens. Its super sharp and good if you like to do macro work, but the one I was referring to is the 100 f/2. Its an entire stop faster, smaller, lighter, and really sharp too
     
  8. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest


    [​IMG]
     
  9. BBB

    BBB OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    40,731
    Likes Received:
    11
  10. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    versatile, but a slow lens and not the sharpest by far. 1 step above a kit lens
     
  11. BBB

    BBB OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    40,731
    Likes Received:
    11
    I like the zoom :o
     
  12. nine

    nine OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    16,247
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    so. cal.
    10-22 + 70-200 f4 non IS if you really want zoom
     
  13. psykosis

    psykosis Go placidly amid the noise and the haste

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2001
    Messages:
    123,753
    Likes Received:
    139
    Location:
    Listing between sin and salvation
    my current lenses are a sigma 10-20 and tamron 28-75. I have an 50 1.8 on the way. I need a zoom. A 70-200 will be my next purchase, but that is some ways off. Other than wanting a bit more reach, I couldn't be happier with my lenses. Love them both.
     
  14. White Stormy

    White Stormy Take that, subspace!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    85,486
    Likes Received:
    69
    Location:
    Sparkopolis
    tamron 17-50/2.8 and canon 70-200/4L
     
  15. Etherized

    Etherized Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2003
    Messages:
    6,484
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    for me 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8

    24-70 gets most use
     
  16. hash browns

    hash browns lolcathlon champion OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    95,387
    Likes Received:
    84
    Location:
    Manhattan Beach, CA
    16-35mm, 70-200mm f/2.8
     
  17. tetsuo

    tetsuo And shepherds we shall be...

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    9,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    i have 2 lenses, a 17-40 and an 85 1.8 :dunno: i'm pretty happy with them for a cheaper 2 lens kit
     
  18. Cesium

    Cesium OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    11,363
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Colorado
    This. If you're willing to give up a little zoom range on the wide end, also look into the tokina 11-16. It gets rave reviews.
     
  19. iridium130

    iridium130 OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    6,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Anaheim Hills, CA --> Denver, CO
    28-135 is good, but on a crop body, it just wasn't wide enough for me.

    Try the Canon 17-85 (or its successor, the 15-85) if you're on a budget, otherwise the 17-55 f2.8 IS is probably a good option too.
     
  20. s14brent

    s14brent Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,011
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    las vegas

    +1
     
  21. BBB

    BBB OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    40,731
    Likes Received:
    11
    couple of local guys are telling me that 18-200 is the shit, but the thing looks just like the kit lens :o

    I think i have more research to do :wtc:
     
  22. BBB

    BBB OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    40,731
    Likes Received:
    11
    prob is that a 24-70 and 70-200 are 2-3x my budget
     
  23. White Stormy

    White Stormy Take that, subspace!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    85,486
    Likes Received:
    69
    Location:
    Sparkopolis
    70-200/4L non-IS isn't that expensive
     
  24. essejgnad

    essejgnad poopty pangts

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Messages:
    499
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tampa, Florida
    How about the 24-70L and a 100 f/2, or stretch your budget a little more and a 24-70L and 70-200 f/4L which would cost ~$1400 or so used
     
  25. BBB

    BBB OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    40,731
    Likes Received:
    11
    Wouldn't non IS at 200mm be harder than shit to shoot with without a tripod?
     

Share This Page